tv The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Comedy Central October 18, 2012 1:00am-1:30am PDT
nate silver will be joining us on the show. [cheering and applause] and then tomorrow night it's president barack obama. but still... [laughter] these people get to... [cheering and applause] nate silver, the president of statistician-stan. as you know, last night the presidential cam pan headed to hofstra university where the candidates debated from a diverse crowd hard of long islanders ranging from italian guys to other italian guys to a jewish guy and his mom. [laughter] such diversity in long island. the first question somehow ended up on the auto industry rescue. >> i know you keep saying, you want to take detroit bankrupt. well, the president took detroit bankrupt. you took general motors bankrupt. you took chrysler bankrupt.
that was pre-sizely what i recommended and ultimately what happened. >> jon: okay. in fact, obama's publicly financed detroit auto industry managed bankruptcy is not precisely what romney recommended. romney precisely recommended private credit, which at the time was to be precise non-existent. meaning under his plan detroit's bankruptcy would have been unmanaged and quite permanent. so the big question would be: which version of barack obama would respond. the first debate, sleepy time ma gill cutty or pretty talk jones. >> candy, what governor romney said just isn't true. >> jon: it's alive! it's alive! [cheering and applause] whoa, whoa. yes, president barack obama decided to attend this debate. [laughter] and the two candidates could finally have a truthful,
substantive discussion about how much they [bleeped] hate each other. [laughter] >> governor, we have actually produced more oil. >> no, no, how much did you cut licenses and permits on federal land and federal... >> production is up. >> it's down. >> no it isn't. >> production on government land and oil is down 14%. >> governor, what you're saying just not true. >> you'll get your chance in a moment. i'm still speaking. the answer is -- >> if you're asking a question. >> that wasn't a question. [audience reacts] >> jon jon i believe you meant to add, mother [bleeped]. romney was sharp and drew blood. >> he said that by now we'd have unemployment at 5.4%. the difference between where it is and 5.4% is million americans work, 9 million.
>> jon: that's going to leave a mark. but for every point romney made, the president made more. >> romney was for a assault weapons ban before he was against it. governor romney doesn't have a five-point plan. he has a one-point plan. my pension isn't as big as yours. governor, you're the last person who is going to get tough on china. >> the last person who is going to get tough on china is that guy, romney. for god sake, romney was assembled at a factory in beijing. that's why he's so well designed. [cheering and applause] romney also... romney had some other issues. >> i don't believe that bureaucrats in washington should tell someone whether they can use contraceptives or not. >> yeah, you should tell that to your disembodied voice that supported the blunt mental which does limit choice. >> of course i support the blunt amendment. some state law. i talked about contraceptives. i misunderstood the question.
>> for those of you in your dorm rooms carving an apple whose ears may have perked up at the mention of a blunt amendment, it has nothing to do with that. laugh laughter and romney had some odd moment, like when describing his efforts as governor to recruit more women for cabinet positions. >> i went to a number of women's groups and said, can you help us find groups. they brought us binders full of women. [laughter and applause] >> jon: a couple things. [laughter] one, the women's group was called mascap, an they approached governor romney, not other way around, and, two, my guess is they did not refer to what they presented as "whole binders full of women." [laughter]
but perhaps referred to it as a well-organized collection of qualified resumes. but hey, binder of women, book of broads, notebook of nipple, whatever, whatever. but, of course, mitt romney still had an ace in the hole. the obama administration's confused handling of the consulate attack in libya that killed four americans. >> it was a terrorist attack, and it took a long time for that to be told to the american people. whether that was some misleading or instead whether we just didn't know what happened, i think you have to ask yourself, why didn't we know five days later when the ambassador to the united nations went on tv to say that this was a demonstration. how could we have not known? >> jon: boom! mr. president, you just walked into a mitt storm. >> the day after the attack, governor, i stood in the rose garden and i told the american people and the world that we were going to find out exactly what happened, that this was an act of terror and i also said
that we're going to hunt down those who committed this crime. >> jon: forceful, remind people that killing terrorists is kind of your thang. [laughter] but still does not fully explain the colossal confusion fueled [bleeped] ups that were benghazi. as long as romney doesn't walk into some nitpicky semantic trap that hadn't even really been send... >> i think it's interesting the president said on the day after the attack he went in the rose garden and said that this was an act of terror. >> jon: oh, boy. >> you said in the rose garden after the attack it was an act of terror. it was not a correspondent utahnious demonstration, is that what you're saying. >> please proceed, governor. [audience reacts] [applause] >> jon: there's your first clue.
when you feel you're about to spring what you, governor romney, think is the checkmate moment of the debate, and your debate opponent says to you, "please, proceed," hold on. [cheering and applause] are you trying to open that door? allow me to open it wider. the door that you appear to want to walk through. but when your opponent does, that you might want to take a breath and wonder if wiley coyote and the road runner, that door your opponent is pointing to, is merely paint on a rock. >> please proceed, governor >> i want to make sure we get that for the record because it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in benghazi an act of terror. >> get the transcript. >> he did, in fact, sir. so let me call it an act of terror. >> can you say that a little
louder, candy? >> he did call it an act of terror. it did, as well... [cheering and applause] >> jon: can you say it a little louder, candy. can you say it a little loud center now just the ladies. can the ladies say it? can i get a woot-woot. please, governor romney, proceed. it was that kind of night for romney. the evidence of obama's victory and resurgence was everywhere post debate, msnbc no longer seemed suicidal. cnn, of course, looked to be shooting a virtual dick in a box video, and... [applause] of course, fox news, well... >> and the questions, there were 11 of them. six were clear pro-obama. >> they were softballs. >> topics we haven't heard much about. >> three extra minutes for obama. >> moderators in these debates should be part of the furniture. >> did she assist the president?
now obviously the debates are utterly overable id by the media. each network spending countless post-debate hours with pundits and body language experts and scientists using whatever the hell that is on that guy's face. it made us think here at "the daily show," why can't we get in on some of that sweet, sweet action? john oliver joins us. john? [cheering and applause] >> hi, jon. last night i assembled my own panel of experts the watch the debate, a body language analyst, a pageant judge, an expert on auras, a man who works at a tie store, a yenta, a woman who doesn't speak english, someone who recently had knee surgery
and an easily bored teenage girl. >> jon: that seems like a ridiculous group of people to put together to analyze the debate. >> that's because it was, jon, so to give their expert analysis, i give to owe the john oliver focus group. i'm here with a diverse panel of experts to gauge in real-time their reactions to this debate. let the debate commence. >> welcome. president barack obama and governor mitt romney. >> okay. so let's stop it right there. who do we think is winning so far? >> obama. >> obama. >> pageant judge? >> right away obama came up with a hi, hello, the hand up high with a big smile. >> aura expert? >> just you could feel from his various body language. >> so far it's equal. >> they both walked on to the middle of the stage and shook hands and literally nothing else has happened so farr. >> exactly. >> that's fascinating.
but key debate analysis is much deeper than how you walk into a room. man who works at tie store, who do you think is winning so far? >> governor romney has a tie interestingly enough with a stripe. it's actually an english stripe as opposed to an american stripe. it seems to me someone running for president should have been advised to wear an american striped tie. >> i have to agree with you. >> pageant judge, you agree with that? >> i agree. for the overall package, you're representing america. many people may not have that knowledge, but now that i do have that knowledge, it just made me feel like, why would you do that? >> even though you literally learned that fact 30 seconds ago? >> abslightly. it did bother me. >> as the debate progressed, the analysis became even more sophisticated. no neither man so far have put their hands in their pockets. apart from nothing, what does that mean? >> it means they're more open. they have nothing to hide. they're letting it all out. >> lady who doesn't speak english, tell me in your own
words who is winning this debate. foul >> [inaudible] >> louder: tell me in your own words who is winning this debate? >> say again please. >> man who recently had surgery, both have their knees up. as someone who suffered an acl injury, what does that make you feel? >> that just reminds me of what i can't do. >> but as all the experts assure us, the only way to really tell who wins the debate is to watch it without audio. now, without the sound, who do we think is winning? >> body language expert? >> romney. romney? >> yes. he's more open. he's more fluid in his gestures. he's less angriment >> easily bored teenage girl, anything? >> i don't know. [laughter] >> see if this affects your response. for this next segment we'll keep the picture up but we'll play the audio from an episode of
"csi: miami." >> like 2,000 cases. >> 2,000 cases and now 2,000 suspects. [rock music playing] >> did that affect your enjoyment of this debate? >> made it more enjoyable. >> yeah. >> yes. >> it's fun. >> it actually did. >> that is hypothetically fascinating. this was going great, but there was only one way the make sure. hi. so you've been watching the panel, watching this debate. body language expert, what is your reaction to how the other body language expert is doing? >> i like the fact that she's physically... her face expressing that she's not agreeing with the other people. >> let's talk about the man who works at the tie store. educated lady, how is what he's wearing affecting what he's saying about what romney is wearing? >> i would say that it doesn't signify the best taste really for october to be wearing lime
green. >> the lady who doesn't speak english, she's not said much. is that polite or impolite? >> well, you see, it's almost like she's a non-person to me because she's so quiet. >> do you think that has high no-to-do with the fact that she can't speak a considered of english? >> possibly. she could at least smile. >> right. >> but of course in the end there's only one panel that really matters. so ohio voter, who do you think won tonight's debate? >> i thought obama won. >> obama it is then because you are the only one who counts. [laughter] what a waste of time. n?s3 [cheering and applause]
>> jon: welcome back. my guest tonight is a statistician and founder of the any timed political blog 538.com. his new book is called "the signal and the noise: why so many predictions fail but some don't." please welcome back to the program nate silver. [applause] thank you for being here. >> thank you. >> jon: absolutely fascinating book. i very much enjoyed the parts of it that i was able to understand. which is very minute. but obviously more importantly, right now... >> right. >> jon: who is statistically winning the race for president between barack obama and mitt romney? >> so we have obama as a modest favorite right now based on
what's happening in the electoral college. we're still in states like ohio, iowa, wisconsin that would give obama 207 electoral votes. he seems to be just a finey bit ahead. >> jon: and how about now? [laughter] >> we just got 20 new polls in. that may have changed. i've missed my ability to update the site because i'm on the show with you. >> jon: is that true? would you like to update it here? >> new york i'd rather be on the show frankly. people can wait. >> jon: people can wait. >> people are too hyper about the polls anyway. >> jon: that's an interesting point. it's because this real-time obsession in the way... it strikes me as when they started to put the news ticker up and the stop figures. >> right. >> >> jon: suddenly, because they existed in real time, the urgency of the changing of it was amplified. >> i think part of the whole dot com boom because when you started to see cnbc playing instead of baseball games in bars. there's so much information
bombarding me, how can i go wrong. it's like, even though we have more information, and we don't know how the use it well, it can get us into more trouble. >> jon: i thought that was fascinating that when you talk about pundits, for instance. you say that the pundits and their predictions are no better than a coin toss. >> yeah. if you look long-term how do people in the mclaughlin group do, they get half their predictions right and half wrong because they're basically entertainers. right, people criticize this show maybe and say, it's entertainment masquerading as news, but a lot of news is entertainment masquerading as news. >> jon: i think that's absolutely correct. [cheering and applause] do you foresee a coin getting its own show? >> a coin toss? >> jon: the coin toss show. just flip it up... >> maybe instead of a recount. that's how they do it in the nfl, just have a coin flip. it's within one-tenth of 1%,
just flip a coin. >> jon: isn't there a point with our elections that we are beyond the ability to know of it statistically, that we are beyond the statistical predictability. >> sure, if you look at the minnesota recount, for example, in 2008, where should we could a ballot cast for lizard people and the florida recount in 2000, that's a case where the election was for all intents and purposes a tie. we could have recounted those ballots 20 times over and maybe should have a do-over instead of a recount. >> jon: right. as somebody who is very knowledgeable about how to compile these types of figures, is there somebody like you within these campaigns >> this is kind of the reverse of ""moneyball"" is the story of how outsiders changed the baseball industry, and it's kind of the reverse where the campaigns kind of do get it and especially the obama campaign but also look karl rove whatever you think of him was a very driven guy. jon yawn want know what i think of him?
there's that free trade, whatever you think of him, and i'm like, let me tell you. >> but the media is the one who covers the campaigns in a silly way a lot of the time where a lot of the time, look, nothing happens over the course of a day. now we're in the pennant race, so it matters, but the average day in april, nothing of importance happens, so you have to have a lead story. >> jon: you have to generate that urgency. >> you have to generate fake news. >> jon: why don't they cover... wow. why was that a bumpersticker i should have on my car? why don't they cover the fact, though, are they being disingenuous not covering the fact that these campaigns are consciously playing to the statistics and the numbers when really they are focusing on the sabermetrics of this election. >> i think there's not a lot of coverage of what goes on behind the scenes. so when i went up to new hampshire for the primary, i would visit the different campaign offices, and you could tell on that basis that romney was going to win because his office was a live of activity.
you had hundreds of people buzzing around. you go to rick perry's office and there's one dude there. hello, hello. >> jon: can i tell you, my guess is that dude was awesome. >> he was happy to have a visitor. >> jon: he was excited. >> and newt gingrich had frank luntz wandering around his office and a bunch of fat people. [laughter and applause] >> jon: can you stick around for a couple minutes? >> yeah. >> jon: "the signal and the noise," it's on the bookshelves now. buy it and also at the same time a calculator. nate silver. [applause] ú?úfrbzczc-1q@4.-x v$$wjj+üpíí1cç[çó÷eu >> that's our show.
join us tomorrow night, 11:00. president barack obama will be in the studio. we'll have a nice conversation. here it is, your moment of zen. >> on facebook, use of the phrase of "women binders" went up. sketchy went up. gangbangers went up. >> did you say "gang backers"? captioning sponsored by comedy central captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org captioning sponsored by comedy central ( theme song playing )